Is Garvey still relevant?
YET AGAIN we are inundated with sermons for Garveyism to be taught in schools. Though a laudable proposal, the availability of expertise is uncertain. Garvey’s thoughts are complex and may seem contradictory to individuals not versed in history and philosophy. But he is recognised by the international academic community as a philosopher.
As such, when Garveyism is introduced in schools, the syllabus must be unbiased and rigorous. Ensuring that students have a systematic understanding of Garveyism has to be the objective of the curriculum. It would be a waste for them to learn Garveyism, only to be indoctrinated.
One book providing an apt account of Garvey’s philosophy is Marcus Garvey Life and Lessons, edited by Barbara A. Bair and Robert Hill. This should be the standard text when Garveyism is introduced in schools.
For a long time, Garvey has been romanticised in the public domain. However, privileging his outdated ideas on race for political purposes has been to the detriment of his serious positions. Activists are doing Garvey’s legacy a disservice by painting him as a radical obsessed with dethroning Western ideologies.
NO RELATION TO GARVEYISM
Equating black ascendancy with the dismissal of Western culture has no relation to Garveyism. Some think that mental liberation means discarding Western ideas in favour of Afrocentric doctrines, but nothing could be further from the truth. Garvey specialised in Western philosophy and lamented that the average black man was unfamiliar with the thoughts of serious white men. Being an autodidact, he recognised that history chronicles the rise and fall of great powers. Hence, any nation interested in attaining superpower status must study the conditions responsible for the emergence of powerful states. In one of his many writings, Garvey notes that useful ideas have no nationality. So only an unwise man would reject a beneficial belief, due to its Western origins.
Garvey envisioned that by acquiring superior Western knowledge, blacks would develop empires of their own. Unlike his contemporary followers, he was not a cultural relativist and had little interest in African culture. Like many writers of that era, Garvey was an admirer of what the British Empire achieved and even endowed fellow Garveyites with British aristocratic titles.
Garvey saw Africa as a resource-rich continent that needed to be developed by blacks in the diaspora. So evidently rejecting Western culture does not constitute an embrace of Garveyism. There is no incongruity between liking African culture and enjoying classical music.
A well-developed mind is acquainted with the best teachings of Western and Eastern traditions. Further, when blacks wallow in self-pity, they defy Garvey because he instructed them to follow the examples of Rockefeller and Carnegie. Such men used their sizeable fortunes to build institutions.
Similarly, he expected wealthy blacks to finance research and scientific organisations. Nations become prosperous through the application of useful knowledge, not by consistently idolising the oppression of their ancestors.
As Garvey postulated ages ago, people are uninterested in laggards. Therefore, predominantly black nations like Jamaica have to become leaders in science and industry. Scholars asserting that slavery and colonialism halted development, without giving evidence, are wasting the time of Jamaicans. Such persons are only succeeding in fostering a victim mindset, serving no progressive ends.
If Jamaicans take Garvey seriously, then they will become producers of knowledge. In contrast to what is commonly believed, this is an instruction to discover new fields of inquiry. For example, putting a black spin on Marxism is not indicative of an intellectual discovery.
Moreover, Garvey would bemoan the fact that many black historians are unable to properly document African history. Anyone with an appetite for the history of ancient African empires or the African medieval ages will more than likely consult the writings of white scholars. In fact, curious minds wishing to acquire a balanced assessment of development in Africa have no choice but to read white writers.
GARVEY OPPOSED OPPRESSION
Several black scholars adopt a political slant when evaluating African development, by privileging the effects of slavery and colonialism. Additionally, some in the academy express cognitive dissonance when they castigate Eastern Europeans for building empires, but celebrate African empires like Mali and Ghana. Empires emerge because great leaders conquer weak polities and subjugate their citizens.
It is illogical to laud empires established by Africans, but condemn Europeans for pursuing the same strategy. Garvey opposed oppression, not the building of empires. Furthermore, one repudiates Garveyism when he constructs a legacy on false pride. Afrocentric Jamaicans enjoy claiming the legacies of Ethiopia and Egypt, since both countries are in Africa doing so is not problematic. But most of us are from West Africa. Hence preferring to declare association with Ethiopia and Egypt demonstrates insecurity. Their achievements may appear illustrious, yet this does not invalidate the accomplishments of West Africa. Likewise, Ethiopians are equally complicit when they deny their blackness or proclaim Jewish heritage through King Solomon.
The best way for Jamaicans to venerate Garvey is to read widely and produce practical knowledge. Those who say they love Garvey, but do not read, are defying his legacy. Primitive people only become prosperous through the application of useful knowledge. Up, you mighty race, accomplish what you will.